Tuesday, June 3, 2014

More reaction to the Singleton contract

Jeff Luhnow:
I think it really began with the desire to have the deal be good for both sides, good for the player in that the player is given some security and the player knows how important he is to the organization. And good for the organization in that we now have cost control over a player that has a chance to be pretty special and that we believe is going to be a good big league player and potentially a great big league player.

(Ed. Note: That's a lot of "player"s)

Bo Porter:
It's as good as a holiday. I talked to him - he's absolutely elated. Like I told him last year, I said, 'You get Jonathan the man right, the baseball part will take care of itself.'"

Sports Illustrated's Cliff Corcoran:
Given (Singleton's past), it's possible to paint Singleton's new deal as the result of a team preying upon a vulnerable young player, but the fact of the matter is that if he wasn't the first player to sign such a contract, someone else would have been, and likely soon. As evidenced by the Springer and Polanco offers, this sort of contract was in the air, and someone was going to take the bait. It's hard to blame Singleton for blinking first.

Boy Rumor Wonder:
Beyond the Box Score:
This new contract doesn't pay Jon Singleton much more than he'd make with reasonable arbitration predictions, and it pays him little enough that the team will squeeze lots of surplus value out of the guy - potentially by a large amount. If Jon Singleton is a star, then this will be an Evan Longoria/Mike Trout type of steal. If Jon Singleton is another Ike Davis, then this was still probably a great move by the Astros. 

It goes without saying that this deal is a huge potential boon to the Astros. If Singleton turns out to be a quality player, he would have gone well beyond $35 million in his arbitration years and first free agent season, but if Singleton busts, they're only out $7 or $8 million above and beyond what they would have paid by going year to year.